On 9/17/2014 12:35 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 17 Sep 2014, at 2:54 pm, Russell Standish <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
But why is "consciousness" or "understanding the argument" the
relevant attribute of "us"? Why not "breathes oxygnen" or
"metabolized carbohydrates"?
The anthropic argument is based on the brute fact of being. I take
this as being identical to being conscious. How could it be
otherwise? Breathing oxygen, or metabolising carbohydrates is not
relevant to being.
Consciousness is "all or nothing". It is supported by computation (or it isn't.)
Yet other list members are discussing awareness vs self-awareness, whether one has to be
able to understand the anthropic argument, or even whether one has to have actually
understood it. Bruno's definition is in terms of what a computation *could* do, not
necessarily in terms of what it does. So I'm not persuaded by assertions of what
consciousness is or isn't.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
